Inaccuracies, procedural violations’ in Great Nicobar EIA report

The details of the recently released draft environment impact assessment(EIA) report for the mega development project in the Great Nicobar Island have raised serious questions related to submission of incorrect or incomplete information, scientific inaccuracy and failure to follow appropriate procedure.
A public hearing to discuss the report has been scheduled at Campbell Bay, the administrative headquarters.

The matter is related to the NITI Aayog-piloted ₹72,000-crore integrated project in Great Nicobar that includes construction of a mega port, an airport complex, a township spread over 130 sq. km of pristine forest and a solar and gas-based power plant.
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Ltd.(ANIIDCO) is the project proponent.
The pre-feasibility report for the project was prepared in March 2021 by the Gurugram based consultant AECOM India Pvt. Ltd.
A committee of the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change(MoEFCC) issued terms of reference(ToR) to prepare the EIA report in May 2021.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, taking into account inter-related socio-economic, cultural and human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse.
Environment Impact Assessment in India is statutorily backed by the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which contains various provisions on EIA methodology and process.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important management tool for ensuring optimal use of natural resources for sustainable development.
It covers developmental sectors such as industries, thermal power projects, mining schemes etc.

Ecologists and researchers have been raising concerns about this project for over a year.
The NITI Aayog vision for Great Nicobar ignores tribal, ecological concerns.
The recent draft EIA has not been able to allay those fears.
Hyderabad-based Vimta Labs Ltd. hired for conducting the EIA.
While the ToR for preparing the EIA was finalised only in May 2021, the report itself lists many instances of Vimta staff being in the field and conducting studies as early as December 2020.
Vimta's pre-engagement to the survey appears a violation of the ToR, which had stated that the DPR consultant should be independent of the EIA consultant.

There are also serious issues of of scientific accuracy and integrity where the data presented is concerned.
Tables with lists of plants and animals found in the island are incomplete and with no sources provided.
The information in other places is internally inconsistent and/or incorrect.
The area of the island is mentioned in one place as 1,045 sq. km, while it is 910 sq. km (the current official figure) in another.
The executive summary entions that the Galathea port area does not record any coral reefs, whereas the ZSI study appended to the EIA, reports a coral reef spread over 116 hectares in Galathea Bay.
Chapter 3 similarly says 330 species of fauna are recorded in the island, while the same ZSI study puts the number at more than double at 695.

The EIA says in another place no migratory birds have been reported from Great Nicobar,
Whereas it is well known that these islands are located along two globally significant bird flyways and more than 40 species of migratory birds have been recorded from Great Nicobar.
The EIA report was expected to have details of the project proponent’s environment policy such as its standard operating process, procedures for highlighting violation of environmental and forest norms and for ensuring compliance with environmental clearance conditions.
In response it is said by ANIIDCO that no such policy exists that they undertake to comply with all laws of the country related to the environment, forests and coastal regulation zone.
Equally illustrative : the undertaking issued by the Directorate of Tribal Welfare, the agency tasked with the primary job of securing the rights of the indigenous people on the islands.

Can there be bigger evidence that this EIA has been approached less as a document to ask important questions and more as an exercise in merely facilitating clearances and ensuring that the project goes ahead.
It is evident that there are serious procedural lapses, lack of transparency and a lack of any seriousness in this EIA process.
The EIA has been reduced to a mere ‘tick box’ exercise and inspires no confidence at all.